Is There Proof That God Exists?

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast
This line of argumentation is no longer making progress. To simplify my position, I will only state this. You see certain observed behaviour in the quantum world and attribute this to something you consider self-aware. This is a position that, as far as I've seen and know, is only held by you. I and, AFAIK, the rest of the physicists engaged in the field have interpreted the evidence differently. This makes your claim extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

Radagast you make assumptions that only you and the rest of the world's physicists are somehow in possession of truths which also have no supporting evidence. The seemingly inconsistent quantum particle actions have the audacity to challenge you and a few other's long held preconceived realities. There are a number of respected physicists whose redundant experimentation and observation of quantum particle activity which hints at independent wisdom needs to be explained.

"As far as you know" no one has the right to question your own long held theories as fact. As you say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence. The supporting evidence has been duplicated by many independent reputable researchers who only make observations.

Single Slit: when a particle stream, whether light or matter, is reduced to where only one particle at a time passes through a single slit, then, after a number of particles have passed through and hit the target, a centralized grouping is found on the impact screen.

Multiple Slits: However, when a similar reduced particle-stream is passed through two or more parallel slits, a characteristic diffraction pattern develops on the impact surface. This indicates the presence of wave interference. Thus, both light radiation and matter particles have wave characteristics, even when only one particle passes through the diffraction grating at a time.
In terms of particle-wave theory, this indicates that after passing through the diffraction grating, the particle’s path must be affected by wave interference, from its own wave. As the particle passes through a slit, its associated wave front, in passing through adjacent slits, creates wave interference thus, affecting the path of the particle, and resulting in a diffraction pattern on the target.

This reinforces the premise of the wave’s physical nature. Specifically, it indicates the wave front has a degree of independence from its source-particle, and, objects in its path can affect the form of the wave front. (In other words, the wave may be reflected, refracted, or diffracted.)Generally stated, the particle-wave may be primarily wave-like – when the particle’s path is directed by its associated wave; or, particle-like – when the path of the particle-wave is directed by the path of the particle.

The more authentic illustration of the physical world became possible only when the ego-centric concept of objective and universal human perception was abandoned.

 

[radagast]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

With the observed behaviour is more being simple supporting the current explanation, compared to your SAS model, (when including all the implications of a self-aware quantum particle) Occams razor would choose the current model.

If your SAS model was that compelling, then I'm sure you would have more adherents than now. But I'm sure you are right and the rest world is wrong, an unrecognized genius that will be lauded long after you are dead...

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary supporting evidence.

With the observed behaviour is more being simple supporting the current explanation, compared to your SAS model, (when including all the implications of a self-aware quantum particle) Occams razor would choose the current model.

If your SAS model was that compelling, then I'm sure you would have more adherents than now. But I'm sure you are right and the rest world is wrong, an unrecognized genius that will be lauded long after you are dead...

Please forgive me for being so bold as to question your current generally accepted wholly physical model. As you have stated, "I usually have a higher standard for wisdom than that, but that's just me."

For your information the Self-Aware Substructure model is not mine. The Principle of Parsimony might well choose your current physical model but the SAS model actually appears to be the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

Because you and AFAIK find current physical theories with absolute certainty, you may also be found to be the true genius of all time. How many great physicists’ work went unrecognized by the current theorists of their day?

Few people have the wisdom to prefer the criticism that would do them good, to the praise that deceives them.

ATTRIBUTION: François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by onycho
For your information the Self-Aware Substructure model is not mine. The Principle of Parsimony might well choose your current physical model but the SAS model actually appears to be the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, one that requires the fewest leaps of logic.

Unless our definitions of self aware differ, self aware involves consciousness. Consciousness requires sensory mechanisms, the ability to think and reason (to some degree) just to be able to make decisions, and, argueably, memory.

This is the baggage introduced into this debate when quantum entities are said to be self-aware.

This is not simplest. When I say simplest, with regard to Occam, it always includes all that is implied by such statements.

To say "God did it" would be the simplest explanation for the universe, as long as questions that arise when examining "god" don't arise.

I apologize for my earlier sarcasm. It wasn't warranted, my irritation level was a bit high due to other causes.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast

Unless our definitions of self aware differ, self aware involves consciousness. Consciousness requires sensory mechanisms, the ability to think and reason (to some degree) just to be able to make decisions, and, argueably, memory.

This is the baggage introduced into this debate when quantum entities are said to be self-aware.

I also apologize for being impudent in my last response. But I don't believe I referred to the fact that quantum entities are said to be self-aware but simply that this phenomenon appeared to be present when found by different independent investigators. Consciousness, memory and all associated mechanisms you mentioned might even be suggested in an SAS model which could account for the possibility that all the particles in the universe have an ability to instantly communicate with one another no matter the distance between them.

This is not simplest. When I say simplest, with regard to Occam, it always includes all that is implied by such statements.

Actually the pure simplicity of such SAS activity would explain a great many nano particle and atom events that currently remain statistically impossible.

Example: The inexplicable creation of a double helix arrangement of four base elements Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. A seemingly innate ability for these elements to replicate on a consistent basis and with such complexity that all life forms on this planet use as a base model. Mathematically what are the odds that the original formation that DNA occurred by pure chance during the entire time span of this universe since the moment of a Big Bang event?

To say "God did it" would be the simplest explanation for the universe, as long as questions that arise when examining "god" don't arise.

I'm not certain why "a god" would necessarily be the simplest explanation for the universe or for the physical laws of the universe. The SAS model does not necessitate a Creator when all one has is experimental observations of the apparent self-aware nature in quantum entities.

I apologize for my earlier sarcasm. It wasn't warranted, my irritation level was a bit high due to other causes.

No problem...

 

[radagast]

I don't see this debate going anywhere so I will withdraw. Our positions are just too extreme, with respect to each other.

From my point of view, you are finding a small quartz crystal, deducing a jeweler made this crystal, then coming up with names for his children and wife. As I say, my point of view.

To me, the unexplained is better than multiplying entities (reasons), without bound nor supporting evidence, for the purpose of explaining the unexplained.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by agnostictheist
and why assert that these are thus due to God?.. you proced by saying:
...If the systems were made in clockwork fashion, then God is at fault, but if it is not, then one can't even say indirectly the faults of the system are actually a result of God, the responce to what you say next may present a philosophical reason as to why...

God made the system
God gave man all his nature including destructive aspects
God gave man freewill
The system produces a lot of suffering, etc
Whose fault could it possibly be apart from God's?
If he intentionally let the system get out of his control leading to a lot of problems that's still his responsibility. Why can't you see that?
Not only that, but He is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so he has absolute control whether he asserts it or not. And he already knows what will happen (this contradicts the idea that man has freewill by the way)

If God did not give us freewill, then we are simply a bunch of worthless -zombie like - machines, with great limitations, it is quite possible that we are a machines of sorts,eg our genes play are major part:

This is an assumption. what do you think freewill is? Your idea of 'absolute' and 'physical' freewill seems naive.

but you fail to note that if we have freewill we could of been "created" perfect, and that we had the potential, without an external infulence - but not nesscerly exluding it, to chose to do Good or Evil, and even make our own defintions of this. Your comment basicly is attempting to argue against a christian theology - which is fair enough, but in doing so ignores other aspects of it.

A perfect being with freewill would freely act according to its nature. Your idea of freewill makes no sense. There is no external influence of evil. If evil exists it exists by God's permission or action.

the scenario is already grossly incorrect, very few christians believe that God created a system and then just let it be, even may argument does not exclude this, and was in fact just to highlight that the "universe" NOW does not need its created after the point of creation and external to time.

An increasing number of Christians believe this. Anyway, if he intervenes every now and again he does so ineffectually - the system is already 'imperfect' acording to your own moral standards. He lety it get destructively out of control. He set it up, knowing that it must be corrupted under the nature he gave it.

Most xtains hold that God still plays a role in some form or anther in ever ourselfs, has a form of guide, or even throw science means, and finally by ways that we can not know of - after all God is supose to be transcedent so one can't measure all of Gods "acts". so the last two points can be used together, though not at the same time and in the same context and measure.

Its just a big fairy tale. I'm amazed sometimes that people in first world countries in the 21st century still believe this sort of mythology (often in a quite literal way)... then again sometimes when I talk to people it doesn't surprise me that much.

the point about many people having different ideas is somewhat worthless, for starts YES ok its true, but with this great diversity there are SOME convergence of ideas, and simlairties! also I don't claim that I can thus understand God, may understand certian aspects in some context, but that's very different so i would expect to see this, and Finally culture would colour my veiw (yes this can swing both ways).

Well, whether you should live a meek life and believe that Jesus is the messiah to get to heaven or whether you should fight to death and die a glorious on the battlefield to join Odin in the halls of Valhalla seems like quite a fundamental difference. What they do have in common is that they are both untestable belief systems with myths that enforce social control.

or maybe the created "objects" responsiblity may dwell in the passage not the end points or the distinations themselfs.

HE made them what they are.
HE gave them freewill - ie. the ability to act freely according to their nature.
HE knew what that nature was and (in God's case at least) must have known what they would do.
HE left them to it (apart from punishing them with plagues and floods for not doing what he 'intended')

I don't mean to be rude, but frist I stated that not to take the bible lituerally then you ask me a question that assumes a sort of bible fundermentalist veiw, in short your applying fundermentalist reasoning or interprations to a non-fundermentalist arguement!

So you pick and choose which bits of this religion you like then? You'll have to explain what your particular interpretation says about this topic then.

Did I say that our precusors had freewill no!, rather freewill EVOLVED out of the "natural world", and has I regard natural has not nesscerly exclusive oppostite form theism, those not exclusively for I have no problem with this.

So not only is freewill a matter of degree, but we have genes for freewill. Oh this is getting more and more funny. What is freewill and how can we have genes for it? The common interpretation of freewill of theists is that it is a property that allows being to act independently of determining factors. Those factors include the atoms of our bodies. So freewill must be a metaphysical property. Now please explain how we can have genes for a metaphysical property.

you simply pushing may argument to the extremme, if you want to believe even for that matter "WE" are some kind of pre-cambrian/cambrian worm then that's your lookout, sure your not claiming it but,it begs the question has to why bring it up. the WE is reffering to a retro-respect look at the "development" of life,

huh?!

and that freewill etc develop, and so simply looking AT one point of time, is a rigid look at the universe, and only a narrow minded look has to If there is a God, why not create a system that yes, we could be at the "top" but may also still develop, yet we were NOT the only "objectve", in which case all the metozia that are now extinct, we also an objective.

huh?!

and before one says that this is a hallmark of a sloppy worker, it most certianly is not, a sloppy worker is one that does something and the work he does comes out badly respective of the object, Evil and what not, while ruins the work, is not at fault of a sloopy worker, has described above. [/B]

Your argument makes no sense. God (supposedly all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing so he has no excuses) created the initial situation. There can be no evil force which is independent of his influence. The system got messed up. He cannot blame the ignorant, stupid, imperfect creatures he made for messing it up - only he has ultimate responsibility.

Your ideas really don't make any sense, but you insist on believing in them. Well, good luck to you.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by radagast
I don't see this debate going anywhere so I will withdraw. Our positions are just too extreme, with respect to each other.

From my point of view, you are finding a small quartz crystal, deducing a jeweler made this crystal, then coming up with names for his children and wife. As I say, my point of view.

To me, the unexplained is better than neither multiplying entities (reasons), without bound nor supporting evidence, for the purpose of explaining the unexplained.

You have every right to withdraw from a debate you find futile.

Actually your personal perspective that the 'unexplained is better' than attempting to propose unsupported reasons or entities are a form of retreating back to those theories which are currently thought to be valid.

Personally I find it interesting to conceptualize unsupportable alternatives to the vast amount of accumulated evidence which may or may not be valid.

Take care...

 

[agnostictheist]

"God gave man all his nature including destructive aspects"

you see this is why I suggested to to be familar with "christian" variants, and not to sinmply state something that argees with you,
most christian systems me inc, do not argee with this, rather they had the POTENTIAL to "develop these", yet you simply want to restate the same thing simply dressed differently.

"God gave man freewill"

Yes


"The system produces a lot of suffering"

Again same problem, some doctrines hold that suffering is merely Gods way of teaching us, or making us even more perfect, that we started from pefection, and again more orders of perfect. - not that I agree with this doctrine, but it goes to show you why you must be more specfic rather than asserting a particlar doctrine, then appearing from your body of text to be the only one... much like you treated "atheism".

I have already addressed on this question is somewhat begging the question. the question you phased assumes some framwork that God created a system that will creat suffering.


"Whose fault could it possibly be apart from God's?"

God's... sadly those that your axioms are NOT consistent with many theological doctrines - some yes!


"If he intentionally let the system get out of his control leading to a lot of problems that's still his responsibility. Why can't you see that?"

I can, which brings me to the point why couldn't you see what you wrote is a different theological/philosophical argumentm to mine and much of christians, I am not asking you to accept mine, or discard yours, but i do disagree with your one. on the basis that your theology is ignorant.

"Not only that, but He is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, so he has absolute control whether he asserts it or not. And he already knows what will happen (this contradicts the idea that man has freewill by the way)"

by the way it doesnt, God is supose to be transcedent right? in order to condradict freewill our omnipotent, omniscient God would have to have some context in "time"... but he DOESNT!

While God has "absolute control" is doesn't mean he thus "controls" our freewill. to a christian.. and this is why before you push rather fancy words around you should be aware of there speical context, God can only be defined by "him-self" - thus God is all powerful in accordance to his nature.


"This is an assumption. what do you think freewill is? Your idea of 'absolute' and 'physical' freewill seems naive."

what are you talking about, "physical freewill" i never stated freewill is physical!

"A perfect being with freewill would freely act according to its nature. Your idea of freewill makes no sense."

Yet above you seemed to ask what is my defintion of freewill and now you state it makes no sense... that's a bit odd.

"There is no external influence of evil. If evil exists it exists by God's permission or action."

please support this?, by the way "external evil" was a contigent, not a nesscery.



"So you pick and choose which bits of this religion you like then? You'll have to explain what your particular interpretation says about this topic then."

this will be interesting:


"So not only is freewill a matter of degree,"

No I said freewill as a matter of degree to it not freewill is a matter of degree. yes there is measure and amount to freewill but freewill but stating thus freewill is the above is wrong.

"but we have genes for freewill."


I never said that, but has you say...

"Oh this is getting more and more funny."

Yes it is.. Now show me were i stated that there are genes that generate freewill...? provided reason has to why you conclused this:

 

[zoolander]

I see no proof though of evolution. The fact that chimps and humans hold similarities is no different than 2 models of cars designed by the same team.

With all mankind’s "intelligent" intervention s/he has still not been able to reproduce evolution of one species to another. A dog can be mated with a wolf but if you did succeed in mating a wolf with a chimp it would be a hybrid. Mules are a hybrid of horses and donkeys. How do you think they make pip less oranges?

Darwin disproved and genetic science confirmed that the then popular theory was that God miraculously individually created each baby.

Geologist’s disproved the idea that the world was created in 7 literal days. Interestingly the bible doesn’t portray these as literal days because Genesis 2:4 says “In the day that the LORD God made the Earth and the heavens” indicating that in this context the meaning of the word “day” is a time period.

Darwin and evolutionists have done much to enlighten the world and give a solid argument against what used to be a single minded belief. It seems a pity that evolution is now considered by the media and schools as a fact without any real evidence.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by zoolander

Darwin and evolutionists have done much to enlighten the world and give a solid argument against what used to be a single minded belief. It seems a pity that evolution is now considered by the media and schools as a fact without any real evidence.

If you want a little perspective on Darwinian evolution you should read the book, 'Darwin's Black Box' which logically debunks evolution for some of the very same concepts you noted in your post.

http://www.sciencebooknet.com/DARWINS_BLACK_BOX_THE_BIOCHEMICAL_CHALLENGE_TO_EVOLUTION_0684834936.html

Prof Michael J. Behe, Biochemist
Released: March, 1998
ISBN: 0684834936

This scholarly text neatly debunks evolutionary theory which "to be true, has to account for the molecular structure of life. This book to show that it does not."

Behes goal is to convince the general reader that the logical foundations of evolution cannot reach back into the cell itself because a number of intra-cellular subsystems and processes are "irreducibly complex."

The detractors who KNOW evolution to be true because it so simple and elegant give no proofs to the contrary. Prof Behe's very lucid in his logic which apparently is so compelling with the EVOLUTIONIST crowd that he has striken a NERVE (evolved or designed).

Evolutionists just know that his findings are wrong, well just because there can be no other conclusion.

 

[losang]

Originally posted by Royce
God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.

First you say that God can not be proven they you say '...and know that he exists.' Second all your experiences are not valid and therefore can not establish God as existing. What you are implying is that that is your proof.

Now my view. God can be shown to not exist and it is elementary. The common statement that it can not be established or refuted is an indication of limited thinking. God is permanent and partless. Something that is permanent can not produce a result and therefore could not produce the world. Additionally, if something is partless it exists independetly of anything else. So therefore, God can not be in the East and at the same time, in the West. God believers claim God is everywhere but this can not be the case.

 

[losang]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why do you need proof? He either is or He isn't. If He is then we should inherently know this. But then again if we don't, perhaps it's because we've taken someone else's word for it? Hmm ... Hey, don't look at me man!

So if the atom exists (i.e. 'is') all people should have known this inherently at all times in history? Think first, write second.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by losang

Now my view. God can be shown to not exist and it is elementary. The common statement that it can not be established or refuted is an indication of limited thinking. God is permanent and partless. Something that is permanent can not produce a result and therefore could not produce the world. Additionally, if something is partless it exists independetly of anything else. So therefore, God can not be in the East and at the same time, in the West. God believers claim God is everywhere but this can not be the case.

So you say that G-d cannot exist and that as præcognitum 'it is elementary.'

Your logic is definitely specious. You say 'something that is permanent and cannot produce a result and therefore couldn't produce a world' on its face belongs to the 'flat Earth society.' Perchance you have no knowledge or understanding of the latest theory of Quantum Mechanics. One subatomic particle here on Earth effects a similar particle instantaneously 50 billion light years across our universe. Ergo your flawed premise is invalid. This quantum effect has been proven by different investigators araound the world. What is impossible to you is not impossible.

What you are implying is that that is your proof...

 

[losang]

Originally posted by onycho
So you say that G-d cannot exist and that as præcognitum 'it is elementary.'

Your logic is definitely specious. You say 'something that is permanent and cannot produce a result and therefore couldn't produce a world' on its face belongs to the 'flat Earth society.' Perchance you have no knowledge or understanding of the latest theory of Quantum Mechanics. One subatomic particle here on Earth effects a similar particle instantaneously 50 billion light years across our universe. Ergo your flawed premise is invalid. This quantum effect has been proven by different investigators araound the world. What is impossible to you is not impossible.

What you are implying is that that is your proof...

First of all your example has nothing to do with my statement.

Second, were you there for the experiement?

Third, what you consider as 'proven' I would not accept.

Lastly, if you accept that something permanent can produce a cause you need to explain why flowers don't suddenly appear in the sky.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by losang


First of all your example has nothing to do with my statement.

I only quoted your own statement!

Second, were you there for the experiement[sic]?

What experiment?

Third, what you consider as 'proven' I would not accept.

You can accept your own reality or that which has been currently been mostly accepted by the leading physicists in the world. Let me see who should I accept, you or those who have proven these effects by multiple real experiments? Hard choice...

Lastly, if you accept that something permanent can produce a cause you need to explain why flowers don't suddenly appear in the sky.

Actually flowers do suddently appear and fall from the sky. Just like the strange events of frogs, fish and other objects raining down in recent past history and documented. No explanation has been given for these events and yes there is more in this universe than you or I will even know for certain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/weather/raining_cats_dogs.shtml

 

[losang]

Originally posted by onycho
Actually flowers do suddently appear and fall from the sky. Just like the strange events of frogs, fish and other objects raining down in recent past history and documented. No explanation has been given for these events and yes there is more in this universe than you or I will even know for certain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/weather/raining_cats_dogs.shtml

First, I am glad your argument is based on the testimony of a 9 year old boy in England.

Second, if all you can do is regurgitate the so called findings of other people then you are nothing more than a tape recorder. I don't accept the methods that phyicists employ as demonstrating conslusive proof.

All your evidence so far has been based on what other people have said. You have nothing more than a faith in what others say. Try thinking for yourself.

Lastly, the experiement I was talking about is the one where a particle on Earth effects one 50 billion light-years away. I'd like to know if you have evidence of this experiment.

Your comments and level of discussion are not worth my time.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by losang

First, I am glad your argument is based on the testimony of a 9 year old boy in England.

Actually there is a multiplicity of reports of these phenomena reported by many people around the world. The explanation that a tornado or hurricane picked up the same identical objects is absurd as all types of debris would eventually drop back to earth. Unfortunately for you these events are well documented and specimens have been preserved.

Second, if all you can do is regurgitate the so called findings of other people then you are nothing more than a tape recorder. I don't accept the methods that physicists employ as demonstrating conclusive (sic) proof.

All you are vomiting up is your own opinion based on nothing more than your own limited experience of the world surrounding you. Your very own self-superior knowledge of all things speaks volumes. Do you really believe that the universe revolves around you?

All your evidence so far has been based on what other people have said. You have nothing more than a faith in what others say. Try thinking for yourself.

Thinking for oneself has very little to do with reality as is apparent in your own words. I am not a physicist but believe that science plods ever onward even without your personal mental vision of reality. Faith in what others say has little to do with proven experimental data.

Lastly, the experiement (sic) I was talking about is the one where a particle on Earth effects one 50 billion light-years away. I'd like to know if you have evidence of this experiment.

Evidence of this experiment is plentiful. The following site gives just one proof of quantum 'spooky action at a distance.'

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2003/5/18/135415/002

The one thing that is truly fantasy-style magic in our world today is not a spell to summon the dead, but instead a phenomenon called quantum entanglement. Very intelligent physicists use very complex mathematics to describe what they observe of QE, but they have no true understanding on WHY it works, and bottom line, It Is Magic. At risk of oversimplification, QE is when the fate of two or more particles become bound together. A change in one entangled particle results in an INSTANT change in the other particle as well, no matter how far away it is - even at the opposite end of the universe. This really bothered Einstein, especially the part that a change in one particle could propagate faster than the speed of light to modify instantly it’s "Siamese twin" as well. Einstein described this phenomenon as "spooky action at a distance" and felt its absurdity would eventually overthrow quantum mechanics as a complete physical theory of reality. To speed this goal along, Einstein and two of his buddies published a challenge in what became known as the EPR experiment. Einstein thought that if performing the EPR experiment in a lab actually ever became possible, it would discredit quantum mechanics once and for all.

Albert Einstein got many concepts brilliantly right in his time, but he turned out to be dead wrong about quantum entanglement. In the 1970s, physicist Alan Aspect successfully ran a version of the EPR experiment stretched across a space the size of a basketball court and showed that quantum entanglement in fact does exist. With this one experiment, the possibility of building a quantum computer seized the imagination of physicists. Current computers are limited by the speed of electrons as they whiz through a microprocessor chip; future optically-based computers now under development will be limited by the speed of light whizzing through their crystals. A computer based on quantum entanglement would have no limits at all on how fast it could perform logical switching operations since it would use "spooky action at a distance" instead of electrons or light. Even the most rabid computer gamer would be satisfied at last.

AND

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/12/12/19/1


Your comments and level of discussion are not worth my time.

If your time and comments are so valuable, you must really enjoy thinking with yourself...

 

[losang]

I don't have time to deal with tape recorders like yourself. You have no idea what it means to establish something. An experiment can only eliminate an idea it can never confirm it conclusively. Secondly, what I am saying is that I don't care what experiement says what. I was not there and therefore can not accept it as evidence. All I accept is the logic of people's (myself included) arguments. Third, if frogs fall from the sky (a you accept) what is their cause?

 

[FZ+]

I don't have time to deal with tape recorders like yourself.

Let us put this simply.

Losang, stop being a jerk.

Consider what you are doing. Stand back for a moment, and just consider. Ask yourself this question: what is the one bad thing about religion?

I'll hazard a guess. The lack of skepticism. The attitude that something can be taken without question. The self centred arrogance that comes from believing that you are right, and everybody is wrong. Divine truth. The whole shebang.

You argued quite vehemently against this sort of arrogance in physics at another topic, if I remember correctly.

Now ask yourself the next question. Who is actually doing this? Who is in fact inflating his personal opinions onto an universal level, who is exploding his own argument into a law of nature? Who has in fact spoken of disinterest in facts over personal opinion?

Precisely. Continue this, and you are the epitomy of dogmatic, bad religion.

I might as well point out the logical flaw: God is usually defined by theists as transcending even logical rules. The First Cause argument for example even goes so far as to define god as that which defies normal logic in having no cause. Your deductions do not apply. It aint so easy.

What would you agree to be valid evidence?

 

[losang]

First off, religion is not by definition dogmatic. Secondly, you can make the same case for science. They both have their assumptions and are based on the predispositions of the practitioners. The claim that science is somehow more objective by defintion is wrong.

I might as well point out the logical flaw: God is usually defined by theists as transcending even logical rules. The First Cause argument for example even goes so far as to define god as that which defies normal logic in having no cause. Your deductions do not apply. It aint so easy.

I don't accept the idea that anything that exists can be beyond logic. If God created the world then there is a dependence between the world and god. If there is a relationship then a logic can be established. What this boils down to is that if someone says God is beyond logic they are implying that God could not have created this world and its inhabitants. If this is the case they do away with their entire belief system. As for you maybe you should think before you post something so trivial and easily refutable. One other note. Before you reply to what I wrote think about it. From what you have been posting you are not very intelligent and I think you may need some extra time to absorb what I said. Take you time, you will be able to think on my level some day.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by losang
I don't have time to deal with tape recorders like yourself. You have no idea what it means to establish something. An experiment can only eliminate an idea it can never confirm it conclusively. Secondly, what I am saying is that I don't care what experiement says what. I was not there and therefore can not accept it as evidence. All I accept is the logic of people's (myself included) arguments. Third, if frogs fall from the sky (a you accept) what is their cause?

The real tape recorder is what you believe and which you parrot like certain conclusions from your own brilliance. Experiments both eliminate and VERIFY hypothesis of men. You accept your own logic or that of like-minded people that refuse to accept that there is actually something else beside your finite and miniscule perspective of reality.

You ask me what is the cause of 'strange things' or events that happen beyond our current understanding of things. I have stated that I am not privy to knowledge not yet PROVED or understood. I told you that scientists have determined that particles effect one another no matter the distance between them. This fact would break the theory that nothing travels faster than light but for reasons unknown, this is the case.

You are like the ancient peoples of the earth. You have a concrete idea of how things are and there is nothing else.

I admit that I DON'T KNOW...

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by losang
I don't accept the idea that anything that exists can be beyond logic. If God created the world then there is a dependence between the world and god. If there is a relationship then a logic can be established. What this boils down to is that if someone says God is beyond logic they are implying that God could not have created this world and its inhabitants. If this is the case they do away with their entire belief system.

So how would a computer be aware of our existence?

 

[losang]

Originally posted by Netme
So how would a computer be aware of our existence?

It wouldn't. How would you define awareness?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by losang
From what you have been posting you are not very intelligent and I think you may need some extra time to absorb what I said. Take you time, you will be able to think on my level some day.

Wow. Logical Atheist? Is that you?

 

[losang]

Originally posted by onycho
The real tape recorder is what you believe and which you parrot like certain conclusions from your own brilliance. Experiments both eliminate and VERIFY hypothesis of men. You accept your own logic or that of like-minded people that refuse to accept that there is actually something else beside your finite and miniscule perspective of reality.

An experiment may verify a particular hypothesis at a particular time and place. If I put water on the stove and it boils all I can establish is that water boiled here at this time in this place. There is no confirmation that this will always happen.

Now that you have attacked me I want you to answer something. Is there any method that you accept where you can establish something conclusively in all cases. That is you can establish a universal truth or law of nature. If all you have is a collection of experiments that verify certain things in certain situations this is childs play and not worth my time.

You ask me what is the cause of 'strange things' or events that happen beyond our current understanding of things. I have stated that I am not privy to knowledge not yet PROVED or understood. I told you that scientists have determined that particles effect one another no matter the distance between them. This fact would break the theory that nothing travels faster than light but for reasons unknown, this is the case.

I said nothing can produce a cause if it is permanent and you said I was wrong. I then asked you to explain, in light of your view, that if permanent phenomena can produce effects why don't flowers grow in the sky. Your argument was that they do and frogs and so on. You need to understand my argument before you can refute it.

What I am saying is that if something is permament it can not produce an effect because if this was so anything could happen. That is, there would be no law of cause and effect. Since a flower is the result of it's sees (i.e. it's cause) if there is no law of cause and effect then a flower can grow without a seed. Your stupid comment on frogs falling from the sky had nothing to do with a refuation of my comments. If you would have taken the time to think about what I wrote you may have made a better reply. The fact that you acknowledge you don't have the answers below is a good start. You are already ahead of most people here.

I admit that I DON'T KNOW...

Good for you. For me I would never admit this in a place like this.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by losang

I don't accept the idea that anything that exists can be beyond logic. If God created the world then there is a dependence between the world and god. If there is a relationship then a logic can be established. What this boils down to is that if someone says God is beyond logic they are implying that God could not have created this world and its inhabitants. If this is the case they do away with their entire belief system.

I love your concrete thinking logic of 'IF' things.

You say that 1 + 1 + 1 must equal 3 but then you might also say that 1 + 1 - Y = X - 4. Concrete thinking gets you into somewhat of a conundrum.

What most say is that beyong logic is beyond HUMAN logic or understanding. Losang for your wisdom is neither infinite or omniscient and therefore your belief system is in actuality a form of a religion with a definite dogma.

You seem to 'believe' that there is no unseen hand in a universe of irreducible complexity. (dogma 1)

You seem to 'believe' there is no G-d so there must be no dependence between man or anything for a second to second dependence. (dogma 2)

It is something to say that I conversed with losang, a human with infinite wisdom who parrots his religious dogmas.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by losang

An experiment may verify a particular hypothesis at a particular time and place. If I put water on the stove and it boils all I can establish is that water boiled here at this time in this place. There is no confirmation that this will always happen.

How can you confirm that in the event your brain's awareness sees water boiling, you can establish that this event actually happened? What proof have you that this event took place and how can you prove it? I once saw a magician move an entire island from one point to another but then he moved it back to its original place. Does this visual effect prove that the island actually moved at this time and in this place?

Now that you have attacked me I want you to answer something. Is there any method that you accept where you can establish something conclusively in all cases. That is you can establish a universal truth or law of nature.

You accuse me of attacking you.. Are you also paranoid and again wasting your valuable time with me?

Neither you, I nor anyone can establish that reality exists as humans assume it exists? All I can say with any degree of certainty is that a 'freewill' exists which allows our allusion of reality to choose between good and evil. The rest is irrelevant.

If all you have is a collection of experiments that verify certain things in certain situations this is childs play and not worth my time.

Well let's save your valuable time. For you cannot prove with any certainty that you are nothing more than a collection of illusions. If you can then you are the only one in the universe that can.

I said nothing can produce a cause if it is permanent and you said I was wrong. I then asked you to explain, in light of your view, that if permanent phenomena can produce effects why don't flowers grow in the sky. Your argument was that they do and frogs and so on. You need to understand my argument before you can refute it. What I am saying is that if something is permament it can not produce an effect because if this was so anything could happen. That is, there would be no law of cause and effect. Since a flower is the result of it's sees (sic) (i.e. it's cause) if there is no law of cause and effect then a flower can grow without a seed. Your stupid comment on frogs falling from the sky had nothing to do with a refuation of my comments. If you would have taken the time to think about what I wrote you may have made a better reply. The fact that you acknowledge you don't have the answers below is a good start. You are already ahead of most people here.

Attacking my views again? Reasonable discussions or opinions are beneficial but accusing others of 'stupid comments' places you in a very small niche.

I understand what you think you posted perfectly. You have no proof other than your own vision and assumptions that a flower can grow with a seed. I can demonstrate that a flower can grow without a seed if you will look at the current science of cloning. Science can grow a flower from a single cell from another plant but that may be too difficult for your concrete understanding.

At least I admit that I do not understand the true ultimate nature of existence or conscious awareness but you seem to be all knowing.

Good for you. For me I would never admit this in a place like this.

That it typical for one who knows all, sees all and opens his mouth without using a neuron.

 

[protonman]

How can you confirm that in the event your brain's awareness sees water boiling, you can establish that this event actually happened? What proof have you that this event took place and how can you prove it?

Ask a lobster.

 

[FZ+]

First off, religion is not by definition dogmatic. Secondly, you can make the same case for science. They both have their assumptions and are based on the predispositions of the practitioners. The claim that science is somehow more objective by defintion is wrong.

It is by my definition. But you didn't address the point again. (A pattern emerges?) The existence of assumptions does not matter, but the lack of active criticism of these assumptions does matter. In terms of ideals, science attempts constantly to achieve greater objectivity, accepting that it is still subjective, whilst religions tend to define their objectivity in terms of their current beliefs.

But that is besides the point. The point is that you are continually perpetrating the same errors you attack theism/opponents for, indeed on an even greater scale. This course of action is not conductive to a profitable debate. One wonders that if you are so keen to establish personal superiority (or even divinity!), why are you here talking to lesser mortals in the first place? Read my sig. Recite it now and then.

There is no neccessity in a debate to introduce emotion, and make yourself a sworn enemy of everyone. With your present attitude, you are giving the perception that you are a jerk. That is a statement of fact that you can do better to remedy, rather than rail uselessly against.

I don't accept the idea that anything that exists can be beyond logic. If God created the world then there is a dependence between the world and god.

Then that is the subjective choice you are making.

What this boils down to is that if someone says God is beyond logic they are implying that God could not have created this world and its inhabitants.

I do not see how you can justify this assertion, which follows on from the similarly unjustifiable assertion that God depends on the world. I did make this offense once, questioning why logic exists at all with a God freed from its powers. The response was that logical/physical laws exist for the convenience of man, and is limited to scope.

From what you have been posting you are not very intelligent and I think you may need some extra time to absorb what I said. Take you time, you will be able to think on my level some day.

My ma always said, life was like a box of chocolates...

I then asked you to explain, in light of your view, that if permanent phenomena can produce effects why don't flowers grow in the sky.

In any case, this is an invalid argument. Declaring a specific case does not give you a value of possibility. If you believe causality to be true, why doesn't eating ice cream make you a millionare?
It is thus worth noting that all the flowers anecdote established is that the causes associated with the sky do not produce the effect of flowers. It has no relevance on the actual question, whether *any* permanent cause can cause *any* permanent effect. How many permanent causes can you name, in any case?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

How can you confirm that in the event your brain's awareness sees water boiling, you can establish that this event actually happened? What proof have you that this event took place and how can you prove it?

Ask a lobster.

I am still having difficulty with proof that water is real, that water boils or that lobsters actually exist in this our presumption of reality...

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman



Ask a lobster.

I am still having difficulty with proof that water is real, that water boils or that lobsters actually exist in this our presumption of reality...

If you are not sure if water is real boil it and then put your finger in it. If you can't accept that water is real there is really no point for us to continue.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

If you are not sure if water is real boil it and then put your finger in it. If you can't accept that water is real there is really no point for us to continue.

Protonman do you think that if you walk far enough to the east you will fall off the edge of the earth?

I'll bet you think that the moon is made of green cheese? Can you see beyond your nose are do you just seem to know that you sense reality as your eyes see it, your nose smells it, your ears hear it and your fingers feel a solid world?

Did you know that the universe is 99.9999999999999999% space and the tiny rest is either a particle or wave that is really condensed energy?

That boiling water isn't there, trust me...

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

If you are not sure if water is real boil it and then put your finger in it. If you can't accept that water is real there is really no point for us to continue.

Protonman do you think that if you walk far enough to the east you will fall off the edge of the earth?

I'll bet you think that the moon is made of green cheese? Can you see beyond your nose are do you just seem to know that you sense reality as your eyes see it, your nose smells it, your ears hear it and your fingers feel a solid world?

Did you know that the universe is 99.9999999999999999% space and the tiny rest is either a particle or wave that is really condensed energy?

That boiling water isn't there, trust me...

All the realities of particles and atoms does not negate the large scale world.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

If you are not sure if water is real boil it and then put your finger in it. If you can't accept that water is real there is really no point for us to continue.

Protonman do you think that if you walk far enough to the east you will fall off the edge of the earth?

I'll bet you think that the moon is made of green cheese? Can you see beyond your nose are do you just seem to know that you sense reality as your eyes see it, your nose smells it, your ears hear it and your fingers feel a solid world?

Did you know that the universe is 99.9999999999999999% space and the tiny rest is either a particle or wave that is really condensed energy?

That boiling water isn't there, trust me...

What you are doing is over analysis of the situation. People bathe in water, they drink it, they swim in it. The ocears are filled with it. What you are doing is over analyzing by negating the reality of the conventional level.

You logic boils down to the fact that there are no atoms either because they are composed of something smaller.

Is there anyone else out there who is watching this discussion? I would like to carry on but this is getting silly.

 

[Netme]

kjfksldjjfsriginally posted by losang [/i]
It wouldn't. How would you define awareness? [/QUOTE]

Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

What you are doing is over analysis of the situation. People bathe in water, they drink it, they swim in it. The ocears are filled with it. What you are doing is over analyzing by negating the reality of the conventional level.

You logic boils down to the fact that there are no atoms either because they are composed of something smaller.

Is there anyone else out there who is watching this discussion? I would like to carry on but this is getting silly.

Actually this conversation is not silly and there are others out there watching this discussion.

Protonman you live in a concrete thinking existence on your 'conventional level' where what you personally experience is as real to you as the moon rising in the evening. What we humans perceive as reality may not just be real as science is just beginning to realize. Take a look at the following Scientific American Journal and you might just begin to realize that there may something more than your senses tell you.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AF072-4891-1F0A-97AE80A84189EEDF

Einstein, the man who came up with idea that matter is nothing more than condensed energy (no one knows what matter/particles, energy or even gravity) really is. You feel boiling water when you put your finger in it but what makes your body (made up of small pieces of particle matter) animate and why do you think or why do you feel pain?

Reality, in my opinion, is nothing more than we assume it exists.

 

[protonman]

Einstein, the man who came up with idea that matter is nothing more than condensed energy (no one knows what matter/particles, energy or even gravity) really is. You feel boiling water when you put your finger in it but what makes your body (made up of small pieces of particle matter) animate and why do you think or why do you feel pain?

Of course water is real. That is all we were discussing. It can prodcue an effect. We were not discussion all the other stuff about feelings, etc. and how they work.

As far as claiming that no one knows what matter/particles, etc. how can you say this? Are you sure? Is this a true statement?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

Of course water is real. That is all we were discussing. It can prodcue an effect. We were not discussion all the other stuff about feelings, etc. and how they work.

What are you talking about? Feelings are not being discussed here but human senses (sight, hearing, touching, thinking, intellect) are what we are talking when we say that boiling water is real. If you were hypnotized and told that the boiling water in front of you was a soft pillow and that you cannot feel pain. Would you touch that pillow in front of you and not feel any pain? That pillow would be real to you and you would not feel your skin nerve reaction. You have seen hynotists putting large needles through the skin of hypnotized humans without pain.

What is real is not real and what is reality is not always reality. Do you understand?

As far as claiming that no one knows what matter/particles, etc. how can you say this? Are you sure? Is this a true statement?

Ask any of the world's greatest physicists, cosmologists, theoreticians or mathematicians about the basic particle/energy quantum events. They will give you wonderous explanations and theories but when you ask any of them what these objects or forces really are, you will get answers but all of them very different.

The honest ones will tell you, 'we just don't know.'

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Netme

It wouldn't. How would you define awareness?

Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him. [/B]

What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know!

 

[protonman]

The honest ones will tell you, 'we just don't know.'

How do you know this is true?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

How do you know this is true?

I have a speaking acquaintance with about four physicists. When posed with the question, they readily admit that all is conjecture.

The following site will give you examples. Look down the middle list of 'present explanations' for matter and energy. See what they say for many at the bottom of each finding. UNKNOWN - UNEXPLAINED - NOT UNDERSTOOD


http://www.starlight-pub.com/UnitNatureofMatter/ExplanationsList.html

 

[protonman]

I have a speaking acquaintance with about four physicists. When posed with the question, they readily admit that all is conjecture.

How do you know the physicists exist?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

How do you know the physicists exist?

By my assuming they exist in this illusion we call reality...

But I also assume that you exist in cyberspace within a dimension of a void...

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

How do you know the physicists exist?

By my assuming they exist in this illusion we call reality...

So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

 

[protonman]

Are you finished?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Do you have any independent testimonials, corroboration, confirmation, attestation, authentication, demonstration, proof, substantiation, testimonials, testimony, validation or proof that you really exist and are not just an illusion in your own reality?

 

[protonman]

I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.